Fw: Fwd: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its Charter

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Fyi, I received this from Olivier this morning and not sure he can publish to 
the Council list.

I will separately post a response.

Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 05:39 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>; ALAC EXCOM 
<alac-excom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fwd: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Concerns over JAS Working 
Group and Violations of its Charter

Dear Jeff,

I am in receipt of the message you have sent to the GNSO council (quoted below) 
concerning the JAS working group alleged violation of its charter. Whilst I 
agree with your comments that the JAS working group has no business reporting 
directly to the Board without the authority of the GNSO council or the ALAC, I 
disagree with your conclusions which paint a completely incorrect picture of 
the JAS WG discussions.

Unless any of the two co-Chairs, Rafik Dammak and Carlton Samuels, have made an 
announcement in the last few minutes, there has been no consensus decision that 
the JAS Working Group would provide direct input to the ICANN Board without 
consultations with either the GNSO or the ALAC. Similarly, I have seen no proof 
whatsoever that a consensus decision has been made for the JAS Working Group to 
deliver its final report in May directly to the Board.

Rather, a demand has been expressed by a *staff member*, relaying an 
unsubstantiated demand from the Board for a report to be sent to them by the 
end of this week. It appears that this was actually not a specific demand, but 
an extrapolation made from a need for all input for the GAC scorecard to be 
examined by the Board, to be "in" by this Friday. I am yet to understand what 
is fact and fiction, and after questioning the source of this alleged "demand", 
have disappointingly received no reply to substantiate any "demand" from the 
Board.

This "demand" was then conveyed and expanded by one of the normal members of 
the working group. That member has, at no time, purported to act in any 
official capacity, and has acted out of their own initiative to make progress 
in writing such a report - forgetting about due process and about the fact that 
neither of the Chairs of the Working Group had ever received a demand for an 
interim report.

In other words, this is a non-event, until a formal demand is made by the 
Board. The JAS Working Group might choose to file an interim status report with 
the GNSO & ALAC and either (or both) might choose to convey it to the Board. At 
this point in time, neither is obliged to do so.

Finally, I deplore your allegation of "failure of the cross working group 
model". Jeff, you are jumping to conclusions based on incorrect allegations and 
IMHO this is not productive. If my message has not made it to the GNSO Council 
list, I should be grateful of you could please be so kind to forward it there 
to set the facts straight.

Warm regards,

Olivier Crépin-Leblond
(speaking in my personal capacity since I have not had the time to consult the 
ALAC due to time pressures)

From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:12:51 -0400
Subject: [council] Concerns over JAS Working Group and Violations of its
 Charter

All,

I wanted to bring to the Council’s attention a discussion on the JAS Working 
Group list which is concerning to me because the conversation by both the 
Working Group and ICANN staff, and the planned action items, are in direct 
contravention to the approved JAS Working Group Charter.  Bottom line is that 
the JAS Working Group is not only providing direct input to the ICANN Board 
without consultations with the GNSO (or even the ALAC), but the JAS Working 
Group is also planning on delivering its final report in May directly to the 
ICANN Board without “the input and consideration by the respective supporting 
organizations (GNSO and ALAC).”  I believe the Council must take immediate 
action in order to enforce the Charter we have all approved.  To fail to do so 
would be an abdication of our responsibilities and more importantly, would 
constitute a complete failure of the bottom-up policy process.

On January 13, 2011, the GNSO Council approved a “Joint SO/AC Working Group on 
support for new gTLD applicants (JAS)” that included the following provisions:
“3. The Working group shall report its results and present a final report 
directly to the GNSO Council and the ALAC for discussion and adoption, as 
appropriate, according to their own rules and procedures.
4. All communication to the ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working 
Group shall be through the respective SO/AC unless expressly approved by the 
respective SO/AC.”  See 
https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/Charter+as+approved+by+the+GNSO+Council
 .

Despite the clear words of the Charter to “report its results and present a 
final report to the GNSO Council” and to ensure that “All communication to the 
ICANN Board regarding the work of this Working Group shall be through the 
respective SO/AC”, the JAS working group on its own initiative (and with some 
help from ICANN staff) is going in the complete opposite direction.

On the JAS mailing list on April 12th, in a post from Avri Doria to the  JAS 
Group, in referring to criteria for a fee waiver program, the following was 
stated:



“We have a requirement to give the Board a draft on Friday, and the
work currently being done is not close to being ready on this
issue.”  See

http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01378.html
.  More discussion took place between the working group about this
report to be delivered not to the GNSO (or ALAC), but directly to the
ICANN Board.







In a subsequent post from Karla Valente (ICANN staff) to the Working
Group entitled “call today and summary for the Board”, the following was
stated:







“Please know that I conveyed to Peter and Kurt that there will be a
summary for the Board by Friday AND that the work done by Friday will not
be the actual "Final Report", which is scheduled to be ready



for end of May. I also added that this summary, due to time
constrains [sp.], will not have the input and consideration by the
respective supporting organizations (GNSO and ALAC).

http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg01381.html”;





I am requesting that this formally be added to our agenda for April 28th and 
request that until that time no summary of work be provided by the JAS working 
group to the Board without review by the GNSO.  This again shows the failure of 
the cross working group model and the lack of recognition that persons 
participating in working groups are there in their own individual capacities 
and not on behalf of their constituency, stakeholder group, advisory committee 
or even the GNSO.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
Please note new address starting March 21, 2011:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, 
Sterling VA 20166

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.